This is why I'm surprised by the praise, he was let through, and I still don't understand why he was.

1) It turned out to be a big gap to drop back2) The Verstappen risk

Many a driver would have said "forget it, I can't drop back to that"

As I remember, it was supposed to be a 5-laps attempt and then giving back the place if not successful. The switch was done on the lap 46, and Hamilton kept pushing to the very last lap 70. That's 26 laps of Hamilton apparently not having any intention to slow down and let Bottas ahead but rather building up the gap to him!

On the end, he yielded. He had to choose between being a jerk and not being a jerk. And I am just reading the news report with the headline "Lewis Hamilton risks the title by giving Hungarian Grand Prix podium spot to team-mate". And in the article it states, "Lewis Hamilton let his heart rule his head in a remarkable moment of sportsmanship". Fake news. Hamilton didn't give anything to his teammate. And a wrong assessment too; it was not his heart but his calculative brain that kicked in and concluded that it was better for him not to be a jerk for 2 points a half of the season down.

If Bottas stuck with him then the argument for 5 laps could be made. But he was dropped like a stone by the top 3, coming after his bizarrely exaggerated way of running off line at Turn 1 to give the place to Hamilton and losing a chunk of time - Jolyon Palmer could give him lessons in how to do it right

He gave the place back because it turns out he's a decent bloke whether you like to admit it or not

I don't see what was wrong with the way Bottas moved over. I thought he was very quickly instructed to let Hamilton by at that specific corner. What he did was get totally out of the way by going wide. He either had to do that or loose more speed and take the normal line and risk slowing Hamilton down. Hamilton wasn't exactly really close at the end of the strait so Bottas did either have to slow right down or go wide. He didn't loose loads of time as he followed directly behind Hamiltn just after the bend. He could have done a slightly better job, but I don't see that it was that bad what he did.

He went way off line and he did lose time. As pointed out above it looked as if he did for emphasis. All a bit unnecessary

He was even ready to surrender the place back after misunderstanding his engineer telling him he had been given another five laps in which to try it. “I don’t think there’s any more I can do,” he responded. “Do you want me to give the place back to Valtteri now?” Negative, he was told. Not yet.

With Verstappen getting ever-closer, there was a real danger that he wasn’t going to be in a position to be handed the place back as it opened up the possibility of Max passing them both. “Push up to Lewis,” Valtteri was instructed. But it was easier said than done.

With Verstappen right on their tail. Hamilton was instructed by the team to only do it if he thought it could be accomplished without risk. He did it at the very last corner. Verstappen followed Hamilton by 0.5sec over the line.

It sounds like the team were not super-enthusiastic about risking the swap back, but Hamilton chose to do it anyway. I certainly don't think it was done without risk, and Hamilton's comments afterwards that he was relieved he managed to pull it off while keeping Max behind him says there was risk involved.

The team got themselves into this mess by refusing Hamilton's offer of handing the place back earlier when it was safe, and when it was clear he wasn't getting past Kimi. They could see the situation with Max developing behind but they still told Hamilton to stay in front while warning him about the Red Bull closing on Valtteri.

All things considered, I wonder if secretly Mercedes/Toto hoped Hamilton wouldn't hand the place back right at the end? They essentially created the conditions where it became almost impossible to give the place back.

but wouldnt hamilton have been a sitting duck for max if hamilton had given the place back earlier. so the faster silver arrow would have to fend off a raging bull while a slower silver arrow was driving miss daisy. no wonder mercedes told hamilton not to give the place back if it was risky.

As I remember, it was supposed to be a 5-laps attempt and then giving back the place if not successful. The switch was done on the lap 46, and Hamilton kept pushing to the very last lap 70. That's 26 laps of Hamilton apparently not having any intention to slow down and let Bottas ahead but rather building up the gap to him!

On the end, he yielded. He had to choose between being a jerk and not being a jerk. And I am just reading the news report with the headline "Lewis Hamilton risks the title by giving Hungarian Grand Prix podium spot to team-mate". And in the article it states, "Lewis Hamilton let his heart rule his head in a remarkable moment of sportsmanship". Fake news. Hamilton didn't give anything to his teammate. And a wrong assessment too; it was not his heart but his calculative brain that kicked in and concluded that it was better for him not to be a jerk for 2 points a half of the season down.

If Bottas stuck with him then the argument for 5 laps could be made. But he was dropped like a stone by the top 3, coming after his bizarrely exaggerated way of running off line at Turn 1 to give the place to Hamilton and losing a chunk of time - Jolyon Palmer could give him lessons in how to do it right

He gave the place back because it turns out he's a decent bloke whether you like to admit it or not

That is why I believe that Bottas lost the spark once he was ordered to move aside, hence dropped so much suddenly. I have no issue with admitting that it was a decent act. I gave that credit to him right away "on line" when it happened. But I am also pointing out now that the bar is being set very low when the bloke who keeps his part of a bargain starts getting praised as someone sacrificing something for behalf of his teammate, out of his good hearth's selflessness. Which would be a fallacy rather. Whether you like to hear it or not.

I also believe that shall it turn out that it was these 2 points to be the ones to lose the title, Hamilton would be regretting and cursing himself for being a "decent bloke".

Why? What's wrong with praising good sportsmanship and selflessness? In an era when he himself has been selfish in the past, as has Vettel, as has Alonso, as has Verstappen, etc. etc. His hero and idol might have been the most selfish of them all. Why should a rare good turn to a fellow competitor not get praised? Dan Ricciardo was praised for being equally as fair with Kvyat in Monaco 2015

Hamilton might regret it yeah. It would only be natural to feel that way. His only goal is to be world champion, not to be F1's nicest guy

I think Prema summed it up nicely when he said the bar must be set very low to think it praiseworthy of someone to simply keep their word. Lewis did the right thing, but is it so laudable and surprising that someone does what they promise to do? Is it our expectation now that lying is the norm and keeping your end of the bargain is something special?

As I remember, it was supposed to be a 5-laps attempt and then giving back the place if not successful. The switch was done on the lap 46, and Hamilton kept pushing to the very last lap 70. That's 26 laps of Hamilton apparently not having any intention to slow down and let Bottas ahead but rather building up the gap to him!

On the end, he yielded. He had to choose between being a jerk and not being a jerk. And I am just reading the news report with the headline "Lewis Hamilton risks the title by giving Hungarian Grand Prix podium spot to team-mate". And in the article it states, "Lewis Hamilton let his heart rule his head in a remarkable moment of sportsmanship". Fake news. Hamilton didn't give anything to his teammate. And a wrong assessment too; it was not his heart but his calculative brain that kicked in and concluded that it was better for him not to be a jerk for 2 points a half of the season down.

If Bottas stuck with him then the argument for 5 laps could be made. But he was dropped like a stone by the top 3, coming after his bizarrely exaggerated way of running off line at Turn 1 to give the place to Hamilton and losing a chunk of time - Jolyon Palmer could give him lessons in how to do it right

He gave the place back because it turns out he's a decent bloke whether you like to admit it or not

That is why I believe that Bottas lost the spark once he was ordered to move aside, hence dropped so much suddenly. I have no issue with admitting that it was a decent act. I gave that credit to him right away "on line" when it happened. But I am also pointing out now that the bar is being set very low when the bloke who keeps his part of a bargain starts getting praised as someone sacrificing something for behalf of his teammate, out of his good hearth's selflessness. Which would be a fallacy rather. Whether you like to hear it or not.

I also believe that shall it turn out that it was these 2 points to be the ones to lose the title, Hamilton would be regretting and cursing himself for being a "decent bloke".

Why? What's wrong with praising good sportsmanship and selflessness? In an era when he himself has been selfish in the past, as has Vettel, as has Alonso, as has Verstappen, etc. etc. His hero and idol might have been the most selfish of them all. Why should a rare good turn to a fellow competitor not get praised? Dan Ricciardo was praised for being equally as fair with Kvyat in Monaco 2015

Hamilton might regret it yeah. It would only be natural to feel that way. His only goal is to be world champion, not to be F1's nicest guy

I think Prema summed it up nicely when he said the bar must be set very low to think it praiseworthy of someone to simply keep their word. Lewis did the right thing, but is it so laudable and surprising that someone does what they promise to do? Is it our expectation now that lying is the norm and keeping your end of the bargain is something special?

Depends who's doing it?

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

He was even ready to surrender the place back after misunderstanding his engineer telling him he had been given another five laps in which to try it. “I don’t think there’s any more I can do,” he responded. “Do you want me to give the place back to Valtteri now?” Negative, he was told. Not yet.

With Verstappen getting ever-closer, there was a real danger that he wasn’t going to be in a position to be handed the place back as it opened up the possibility of Max passing them both. “Push up to Lewis,” Valtteri was instructed. But it was easier said than done.

With Verstappen right on their tail. Hamilton was instructed by the team to only do it if he thought it could be accomplished without risk. He did it at the very last corner. Verstappen followed Hamilton by 0.5sec over the line.

It sounds like the team were not super-enthusiastic about risking the swap back, but Hamilton chose to do it anyway. I certainly don't think it was done without risk, and Hamilton's comments afterwards that he was relieved he managed to pull it off while keeping Max behind him says there was risk involved.

The team got themselves into this mess by refusing Hamilton's offer of handing the place back earlier when it was safe, and when it was clear he wasn't getting past Kimi. They could see the situation with Max developing behind but they still told Hamilton to stay in front while warning him about the Red Bull closing on Valtteri.

All things considered, I wonder if secretly Mercedes/Toto hoped Hamilton wouldn't hand the place back right at the end? They essentially created the conditions where it became almost impossible to give the place back.

but wouldnt hamilton have been a sitting duck for max if hamilton had given the place back earlier. so the faster silver arrow would have to fend off a raging bull while a slower silver arrow was driving miss daisy. no wonder mercedes told hamilton not to give the place back if it was risky.

You described the position Ferrari were in...Wouldn't Raikkonen have been a sitting duck for Hamilton... so the faster Ferrari would have to fend off a raging Mercedes while the slower Ferrari was driving miss daisy.

With the lack of overtaking, no one was really in jeopardy of being passed.

I think what we saw today made it 100% clear that Bottas and Hamilton and equals and Mercedes race each race to maximise the team result.

Bottas did his usual, only good on one compound tyre. Not a single race has he been strong on both, even with his charge last race in Silverstone, his pace was actually weak when on that SS charge. If it was a track overtaking was possible on, Hamilton probably would have won or been 2nd behind Kimi today, with Bottas 4th. Bottas reminds me of Heikki, very good over 1 lap, questionable race pace. Although Bottas usually has good race pace on 1 tyre, Heikki was just plain weak in the race.

Pretty clear today, Mercedes race each race to maximise the team result regardless of drivers. Ferrari race each race to maximise Vettels results and actively slow Raikkonen down - they pitted him because he was going to over cut Vettel and take the lead today. If they were equals, Kimi would have 2 wins this year now (Monaco and Hungary) both of which they pitted him at that point so Vettel won or at least gave Vettel a chance to win (Monaco). The lap Kimi pitted today was about to be the fastest lap of the race, his in lap was 1.6 seconds quicker than Vettels.

I disagree. Exactly how did Bottas benefit from swapping? Where was it in his interests at all. He finished 3rd, exactly where he was going to finish if he just kept going without the swap. Hamilton was never going to overtake him.

The only other possible outcome was Hamilton taking Kimi or even Seb. If so, Bottas finishes 4th. He could only lose a place or gain nothing.

That swap was blatant team orders that could only favour Hamilton. The best interests of Bottas were never considered.

Respect to Hamilton for giving the spot back, but absolutely not to Merc. They absolutely have their number 1 sorted too.

If Bottas stuck with him then the argument for 5 laps could be made. But he was dropped like a stone by the top 3, coming after his bizarrely exaggerated way of running off line at Turn 1 to give the place to Hamilton and losing a chunk of time - Jolyon Palmer could give him lessons in how to do it right

He gave the place back because it turns out he's a decent bloke whether you like to admit it or not

That is why I believe that Bottas lost the spark once he was ordered to move aside, hence dropped so much suddenly. I have no issue with admitting that it was a decent act. I gave that credit to him right away "on line" when it happened. But I am also pointing out now that the bar is being set very low when the bloke who keeps his part of a bargain starts getting praised as someone sacrificing something for behalf of his teammate, out of his good hearth's selflessness. Which would be a fallacy rather. Whether you like to hear it or not.

I also believe that shall it turn out that it was these 2 points to be the ones to lose the title, Hamilton would be regretting and cursing himself for being a "decent bloke".

Why? What's wrong with praising good sportsmanship and selflessness? In an era when he himself has been selfish in the past, as has Vettel, as has Alonso, as has Verstappen, etc. etc. His hero and idol might have been the most selfish of them all. Why should a rare good turn to a fellow competitor not get praised? Dan Ricciardo was praised for being equally as fair with Kvyat in Monaco 2015

Hamilton might regret it yeah. It would only be natural to feel that way. His only goal is to be world champion, not to be F1's nicest guy

I think Prema summed it up nicely when he said the bar must be set very low to think it praiseworthy of someone to simply keep their word. Lewis did the right thing, but is it so laudable and surprising that someone does what they promise to do? Is it our expectation now that lying is the norm and keeping your end of the bargain is something special?

I think what we saw today made it 100% clear that Bottas and Hamilton and equals and Mercedes race each race to maximise the team result.

Bottas did his usual, only good on one compound tyre. Not a single race has he been strong on both, even with his charge last race in Silverstone, his pace was actually weak when on that SS charge. If it was a track overtaking was possible on, Hamilton probably would have won or been 2nd behind Kimi today, with Bottas 4th. Bottas reminds me of Heikki, very good over 1 lap, questionable race pace. Although Bottas usually has good race pace on 1 tyre, Heikki was just plain weak in the race.

Pretty clear today, Mercedes race each race to maximise the team result regardless of drivers. Ferrari race each race to maximise Vettels results and actively slow Raikkonen down - they pitted him because he was going to over cut Vettel and take the lead today. If they were equals, Kimi would have 2 wins this year now (Monaco and Hungary) both of which they pitted him at that point so Vettel won or at least gave Vettel a chance to win (Monaco). The lap Kimi pitted today was about to be the fastest lap of the race, his in lap was 1.6 seconds quicker than Vettels.

I disagree. Exactly how did Bottas benefit from swapping? Where was it in his interests at all. He finished 3rd, exactly where he was going to finish if he just kept going without the swap. Hamilton was never going to overtake him.

The only other possible outcome was Hamilton taking Kimi or even Seb. If so, Bottas finishes 4th. He could only lose a place or gain nothing.

That swap was blatant team orders that could only favour Hamilton. The best interests of Bottas were never considered.

Respect to Hamilton for giving the spot back, but absolutely not to Merc. They absolutely have their number 1 sorted too.

Get off your high horse.

Mercedes race to maximise their team result. 2nd and 4th is better than 3rd and 4th. It was clear Bottas did not have the pace to pass Kimi so why not let Hamilton have a go who at times this season has had race pace significantly faster than Bottas.

Indeed, if Hamilton couldn't get past Bottas why would anyone expect Max too? Albeit, he has nothing to lose... and he's clumsy.

Whilst it was unlikely, Max had tyres 10 laps fresher and Max is Max so he might try something a bit crazy. Now the race is over, it seems a car needed to be at least 1.2-1.5 seconds per lap quicker to pass this race.

As I remember, it was supposed to be a 5-laps attempt and then giving back the place if not successful. The switch was done on the lap 46, and Hamilton kept pushing to the very last lap 70. That's 26 laps of Hamilton apparently not having any intention to slow down and let Bottas ahead but rather building up the gap to him!

On the end, he yielded. He had to choose between being a jerk and not being a jerk. And I am just reading the news report with the headline "Lewis Hamilton risks the title by giving Hungarian Grand Prix podium spot to team-mate". And in the article it states, "Lewis Hamilton let his heart rule his head in a remarkable moment of sportsmanship". Fake news. Hamilton didn't give anything to his teammate. And a wrong assessment too; it was not his heart but his calculative brain that kicked in and concluded that it was better for him not to be a jerk for 2 points a half of the season down.

If Bottas stuck with him then the argument for 5 laps could be made. But he was dropped like a stone by the top 3, coming after his bizarrely exaggerated way of running off line at Turn 1 to give the place to Hamilton and losing a chunk of time - Jolyon Palmer could give him lessons in how to do it right

He gave the place back because it turns out he's a decent bloke whether you like to admit it or not

That is why I believe that Bottas lost the spark once he was ordered to move aside, hence dropped so much suddenly. I have no issue with admitting that it was a decent act. I gave that credit to him right away "on line" when it happened. But I am also pointing out now that the bar is being set very low when the bloke who keeps his part of a bargain starts getting praised as someone sacrificing something for behalf of his teammate, out of his good hearth's selflessness. Which would be a fallacy rather. Whether you like to hear it or not.

I also believe that shall it turn out that it was these 2 points to be the ones to lose the title, Hamilton would be regretting and cursing himself for being a "decent bloke".

Why? What's wrong with praising good sportsmanship and selflessness? In an era when he himself has been selfish in the past, as has Vettel, as has Alonso, as has Verstappen, etc. etc. His hero and idol might have been the most selfish of them all. Why should a rare good turn to a fellow competitor not get praised? Dan Ricciardo was praised for being equally as fair with Kvyat in Monaco 2015

Hamilton might regret it yeah. It would only be natural to feel that way. His only goal is to be world champion, not to be F1's nicest guy

I don't know how to answer your question without repeating myself. It is one thing to recognize and congratulate a decent act, and it is another thing to go making fairy cakes fake narratives out of it. Like Hamilton being a good heart dude sacrificing his precious 2 WDC points by giving the podium position away to his teammate. That is a pure BS.

And I don't actually agree even with your assessment of this act as "selflessness". Not falling victim to selfishness at some instance, that does not mean 'selflessness' by de fault. If I keep paying all my bills on time to everybody and am not screwing anybody over, that is not 'selflessness'. That is but being decent, honoring my responsibilities. Selflessness would involve an act of a sacrifice, like paying into a charity that you are not obliged to but you do due to having a good heart (and not for getting a tax break or to go bragging about).As I said, the bar seems to be set low nowadays.

I think what we saw today made it 100% clear that Bottas and Hamilton and equals and Mercedes race each race to maximise the team result.

Bottas did his usual, only good on one compound tyre. Not a single race has he been strong on both, even with his charge last race in Silverstone, his pace was actually weak when on that SS charge. If it was a track overtaking was possible on, Hamilton probably would have won or been 2nd behind Kimi today, with Bottas 4th. Bottas reminds me of Heikki, very good over 1 lap, questionable race pace. Although Bottas usually has good race pace on 1 tyre, Heikki was just plain weak in the race.

Pretty clear today, Mercedes race each race to maximise the team result regardless of drivers. Ferrari race each race to maximise Vettels results and actively slow Raikkonen down - they pitted him because he was going to over cut Vettel and take the lead today. If they were equals, Kimi would have 2 wins this year now (Monaco and Hungary) both of which they pitted him at that point so Vettel won or at least gave Vettel a chance to win (Monaco). The lap Kimi pitted today was about to be the fastest lap of the race, his in lap was 1.6 seconds quicker than Vettels.

I disagree. Exactly how did Bottas benefit from swapping? Where was it in his interests at all. He finished 3rd, exactly where he was going to finish if he just kept going without the swap. Hamilton was never going to overtake him.

The only other possible outcome was Hamilton taking Kimi or even Seb. If so, Bottas finishes 4th. He could only lose a place or gain nothing.

That swap was blatant team orders that could only favour Hamilton. The best interests of Bottas were never considered.

Respect to Hamilton for giving the spot back, but absolutely not to Merc. They absolutely have their number 1 sorted too.

Get off your high horse.

Mercedes race to maximise their team result. 2nd and 4th is better than 3rd and 4th. It was clear Bottas did not have the pace to pass Kimi so why not let Hamilton have a go who at times this season has had race pace significantly faster than Bottas.

That is what I thought. Judging from Hamilton's pace, it looked like he could potentially get 2nd. But he said he would give it back if he couldn't manage. Bottas let him past first then as Hamilton couldn't get past the Ferrari's, he gave it back. As Hamilton qualified behind Bottas and it looked incredibly unlikely that Hamilton will have got past Bottas without team orders, I see that as the only fair option. It looked much more likely that Hamilton could have managed 2nd than Bottas. And as you say, 2nd and 4th is better for the team than 3rd and 4th. But as the team will have got the same result if Hamilton will have only been 3rd, he and the team were obviously happy to swap it around again which I think was very fair as Bottas had probably done enough in qualifying to get 3rd if there were no team orders involved.

As I remember, it was supposed to be a 5-laps attempt and then giving back the place if not successful. The switch was done on the lap 46, and Hamilton kept pushing to the very last lap 70. That's 26 laps of Hamilton apparently not having any intention to slow down and let Bottas ahead but rather building up the gap to him!

On the end, he yielded. He had to choose between being a jerk and not being a jerk. And I am just reading the news report with the headline "Lewis Hamilton risks the title by giving Hungarian Grand Prix podium spot to team-mate". And in the article it states, "Lewis Hamilton let his heart rule his head in a remarkable moment of sportsmanship". Fake news. Hamilton didn't give anything to his teammate. And a wrong assessment too; it was not his heart but his calculative brain that kicked in and concluded that it was better for him not to be a jerk for 2 points a half of the season down.

If Bottas stuck with him then the argument for 5 laps could be made. But he was dropped like a stone by the top 3, coming after his bizarrely exaggerated way of running off line at Turn 1 to give the place to Hamilton and losing a chunk of time - Jolyon Palmer could give him lessons in how to do it right

He gave the place back because it turns out he's a decent bloke whether you like to admit it or not

That is why I believe that Bottas lost the spark once he was ordered to move aside, hence dropped so much suddenly. I have no issue with admitting that it was a decent act. I gave that credit to him right away "on line" when it happened. But I am also pointing out now that the bar is being set very low when the bloke who keeps his part of a bargain starts getting praised as someone sacrificing something for behalf of his teammate, out of his good hearth's selflessness. Which would be a fallacy rather. Whether you like to hear it or not.

I also believe that shall it turn out that it was these 2 points to be the ones to lose the title, Hamilton would be regretting and cursing himself for being a "decent bloke".

Why? What's wrong with praising good sportsmanship and selflessness? In an era when he himself has been selfish in the past, as has Vettel, as has Alonso, as has Verstappen, etc. etc. His hero and idol might have been the most selfish of them all. Why should a rare good turn to a fellow competitor not get praised? Dan Ricciardo was praised for being equally as fair with Kvyat in Monaco 2015

Hamilton might regret it yeah. It would only be natural to feel that way. His only goal is to be world champion, not to be F1's nicest guy

I think Prema summed it up nicely when he said the bar must be set very low to think it praiseworthy of someone to simply keep their word. Lewis did the right thing, but is it so laudable and surprising that someone does what they promise to do? Is it our expectation now that lying is the norm and keeping your end of the bargain is something special?

You're talking like someone who is new to F1. The bar has been set that low

As I remember, it was supposed to be a 5-laps attempt and then giving back the place if not successful. The switch was done on the lap 46, and Hamilton kept pushing to the very last lap 70. That's 26 laps of Hamilton apparently not having any intention to slow down and let Bottas ahead but rather building up the gap to him!

On the end, he yielded. He had to choose between being a jerk and not being a jerk. And I am just reading the news report with the headline "Lewis Hamilton risks the title by giving Hungarian Grand Prix podium spot to team-mate". And in the article it states, "Lewis Hamilton let his heart rule his head in a remarkable moment of sportsmanship". Fake news. Hamilton didn't give anything to his teammate. And a wrong assessment too; it was not his heart but his calculative brain that kicked in and concluded that it was better for him not to be a jerk for 2 points a half of the season down.

If Bottas stuck with him then the argument for 5 laps could be made. But he was dropped like a stone by the top 3, coming after his bizarrely exaggerated way of running off line at Turn 1 to give the place to Hamilton and losing a chunk of time - Jolyon Palmer could give him lessons in how to do it right

He gave the place back because it turns out he's a decent bloke whether you like to admit it or not

That is why I believe that Bottas lost the spark once he was ordered to move aside, hence dropped so much suddenly. I have no issue with admitting that it was a decent act. I gave that credit to him right away "on line" when it happened. But I am also pointing out now that the bar is being set very low when the bloke who keeps his part of a bargain starts getting praised as someone sacrificing something for behalf of his teammate, out of his good hearth's selflessness. Which would be a fallacy rather. Whether you like to hear it or not.

I also believe that shall it turn out that it was these 2 points to be the ones to lose the title, Hamilton would be regretting and cursing himself for being a "decent bloke".

Why? What's wrong with praising good sportsmanship and selflessness? In an era when he himself has been selfish in the past, as has Vettel, as has Alonso, as has Verstappen, etc. etc. His hero and idol might have been the most selfish of them all. Why should a rare good turn to a fellow competitor not get praised? Dan Ricciardo was praised for being equally as fair with Kvyat in Monaco 2015

Hamilton might regret it yeah. It would only be natural to feel that way. His only goal is to be world champion, not to be F1's nicest guy

I don't know how to answer your question without repeating myself. It is one thing to recognize and congratulate a decent act, and it is another thing to go making fairy cakes fake narratives out of it. Like Hamilton being a good heart dude sacrificing his precious 2 WDC points by giving the podium position away to his teammate. That is a pure BS.

And I don't actually agree even with your assessment of this act as "selflessness". Not falling victim to selfishness at some instance, that does not mean 'selflessness' by de fault. If I keep paying all my bills on time to everybody and am not screwing anybody over, that is not 'selflessness'. That is but being decent, honoring my responsibilities. Selflessness would involve an act of a sacrifice, like paying into a charity that you are not obliged to but you do due to having a good heart (and not for getting a tax break or to go bragging about).As I said, the bar seems to be set low nowadays.

3 points actually and they are precious. Especially when he has been behind Vettel on the scoreboard all season

I absolutely despise that team orders are now allowed to be openly practiced. Force each car on the team to have different sponsors (so there is no conflict of interest) and allow each driver to sink or swim on their own merit. Instead of pairs of drivers negotiating for positions, we would have each and every driver battling everyone else in serious competition. I want to see 22 drivers going at it, fighting everyone and anyone during a race.

And fans can return to discussing racing instead of how chess pieces are moved around the board.

Indycar and NASCAR have it right. Yes, there are teams, but once the flag flies, it is basically every man for himself.

If Bottas stuck with him then the argument for 5 laps could be made. But he was dropped like a stone by the top 3, coming after his bizarrely exaggerated way of running off line at Turn 1 to give the place to Hamilton and losing a chunk of time - Jolyon Palmer could give him lessons in how to do it right

He gave the place back because it turns out he's a decent bloke whether you like to admit it or not

That is why I believe that Bottas lost the spark once he was ordered to move aside, hence dropped so much suddenly. I have no issue with admitting that it was a decent act. I gave that credit to him right away "on line" when it happened. But I am also pointing out now that the bar is being set very low when the bloke who keeps his part of a bargain starts getting praised as someone sacrificing something for behalf of his teammate, out of his good hearth's selflessness. Which would be a fallacy rather. Whether you like to hear it or not.

I also believe that shall it turn out that it was these 2 points to be the ones to lose the title, Hamilton would be regretting and cursing himself for being a "decent bloke".

Why? What's wrong with praising good sportsmanship and selflessness? In an era when he himself has been selfish in the past, as has Vettel, as has Alonso, as has Verstappen, etc. etc. His hero and idol might have been the most selfish of them all. Why should a rare good turn to a fellow competitor not get praised? Dan Ricciardo was praised for being equally as fair with Kvyat in Monaco 2015

Hamilton might regret it yeah. It would only be natural to feel that way. His only goal is to be world champion, not to be F1's nicest guy

I think Prema summed it up nicely when he said the bar must be set very low to think it praiseworthy of someone to simply keep their word. Lewis did the right thing, but is it so laudable and surprising that someone does what they promise to do? Is it our expectation now that lying is the norm and keeping your end of the bargain is something special?

You're talking like someone who is new to F1. The bar has been set that low

Isn't that completely different? Max didn't renege on an agreement: he simply refused to let Sainz try to tackle the cars ahead. If he'd said no after first being let through, that would have been a different story. Verstappen was the Bottas in this story, not the Hamilton.

Hamilton asked to be let through and promised to hand back the place if unsuccessful. He kept that promise, but isn't that a non-story? It's the default expectation, surely?

I absolutely despise that team orders are now allowed to be openly practiced. Force each car on the team to have different sponsors (so there is no conflict of interest) and allow each driver to sink or swim on their own merit. Instead of pairs of drivers negotiating for positions, we would have each and every driver battling everyone else in serious competition. I want to see 22 drivers going at it, fighting everyone and anyone during a race.

And fans can return to discussing racing instead of how chess pieces are moved around the board.

Indycar and NASCAR have it right. Yes, there are teams, but once the flag flies, it is basically every man for himself.

I agree - I hate team orders but there is no way to prevent them

It doesn't matter who the sponsors are, the person who calls the shots is the one who signs the pay cheques!!

I think you're also perhaps forgetting the rumoured No.1 & No.2 driver 'status' that may or not may exist within certain teams and signed contracts?

That is why I believe that Bottas lost the spark once he was ordered to move aside, hence dropped so much suddenly. I have no issue with admitting that it was a decent act. I gave that credit to him right away "on line" when it happened. But I am also pointing out now that the bar is being set very low when the bloke who keeps his part of a bargain starts getting praised as someone sacrificing something for behalf of his teammate, out of his good hearth's selflessness. Which would be a fallacy rather. Whether you like to hear it or not.

I also believe that shall it turn out that it was these 2 points to be the ones to lose the title, Hamilton would be regretting and cursing himself for being a "decent bloke".

Why? What's wrong with praising good sportsmanship and selflessness? In an era when he himself has been selfish in the past, as has Vettel, as has Alonso, as has Verstappen, etc. etc. His hero and idol might have been the most selfish of them all. Why should a rare good turn to a fellow competitor not get praised? Dan Ricciardo was praised for being equally as fair with Kvyat in Monaco 2015

Hamilton might regret it yeah. It would only be natural to feel that way. His only goal is to be world champion, not to be F1's nicest guy

I don't know how to answer your question without repeating myself. It is one thing to recognize and congratulate a decent act, and it is another thing to go making fairy cakes fake narratives out of it. Like Hamilton being a good heart dude sacrificing his precious 2 WDC points by giving the podium position away to his teammate. That is a pure BS.

And I don't actually agree even with your assessment of this act as "selflessness". Not falling victim to selfishness at some instance, that does not mean 'selflessness' by de fault. If I keep paying all my bills on time to everybody and am not screwing anybody over, that is not 'selflessness'. That is but being decent, honoring my responsibilities. Selflessness would involve an act of a sacrifice, like paying into a charity that you are not obliged to but you do due to having a good heart (and not for getting a tax break or to go bragging about).As I said, the bar seems to be set low nowadays.

3 points actually and they are precious. Especially when he has been behind Vettel on the scoreboard all season

Disagree if you like. It doesn't make you right

yes, 3 points, corrected

Well, I didn't simply disagree, but I also qualified my position that, behold a coincidence, happens to concur with the dictionary definition:

selflessnessnounconcern more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own.

Austria he won, but was slower in the 2nd stint. Mercedes knew he would be so they gave him a big tyre offset with Vettel (bottas had 8 lap fresher tyres) but was still caught with Vettel hounding him at the end.

He was slower than Vettel, but I am not sure if he was slower than Hamilton. If he was, then fair point. He did manage to win so it is a bit of a moot point. He did not seem to over-extend his equipment in the process either.

lamo wrote:

With Hindsight he run a strategy that didn't change the outcome. But at the time, the optimum was to stay close to the leaders, nothing to gain by dropping back. Vettel might have became to lose 1 second more per lap and been passed by both Kimi and Lewis, Bottas 8 seconds behind and might not have got Vettel in such scenario. No reason to fall so far behind, none at all.

Bottas had every reason to fall behind by playing it smart. Given the makeup of the remaining tracks, a Mercedes car will win the WDC baring unforeseen circumstances like an engine failure. Minimizing that risk by turning down the engine mode was the right move. He ran a 4th place pace race and he finished 3rd. That's pretty good in my book.

lamo wrote:

You keep the pressure on and stay in contact ready to pick up scraps at the end.

...as long as you are not ordered to fall behind your teammate, whereas it may be smarter to fight another day with odds in your favor for a change.

1) Yes, Hamilton, Vettel and Ricciardo were catching Bottas in Austria once he put on the soft tyre. Even though each had a much older tyre, poor on the soft but done enough early on to hold on. But same story as the entire season. Even Silverstone he was relatively weak on the SS at the end. Its usually the harder of the two tyres he struggles with but there has been exceptions, such as Silverstone where it was the other way around.

2) How do you know Bottas turned the engine down? That is an assumption you are making. As I stated once he let Hamilton by he increased his pace by about 0.5 per lap, it was just the other 3 increased it by a bit more than that. That does not suggest turning his engine down to me. He also struggled more with the traffic than the others which he stated in the post race interview.

Jep, Kimi is underrated, and Vettel is overrated. They are actually quite close pacewise.

Totally agree with Raikkonen being underrated and have been saying this for years now. The guys is one of the very best at assessing a car's weaknesses and providing feedback to his teams as to conveying precisely what the car is doing and what the car needs to improve overall balance & performance.

On the second part of your statement i completely disagree. Vettel is in no way underrated. The guy is a flat out beast and can put laps together in a way very few can or have been able to in the history of the sport. All the nonsense that he was lucky to be driving a Red Bull for the time he was there was nothing short of cow manure. He fought Hamilton neck and neck in 2 of those years and got more poles and wins than Hamilton and everyone else consistently. It's one thing to do that with some regularity, but it's a whole other animal to do it quite frequently. The cars he drove while with Red Bull were indeed the cream of the crop but the vastly more experienced Webber was only capable of matching him in one season, before the DD was further developed and required more throttle to suck the car down as opposed to lifting. Once that came into play, Webber's brain simply could not adapt to learning what Vettel was able to. One could also argue at times he benefited from slick circumvention of the regs by his team (I've argued that in the past myself), but since the FIA cleared them of any wrong doing, it must be accepted. Either way, he did a damn fine job.

Anyone remember when all the talk was that Vettel must go to another team to prove his mettle?Well he went to a Ferrari that was struggling mightily for over 5 years while employing one of the greatest F1 drivers in history, and since then he's managed to continue winning. This season the Mercedes and Ferraris are about as equal as the Mclaren's of 2007 and he's still winning races and finishing high up the order when he doesn't win, yet he's still overrated?

At what point will he have done enough for people to recognize he is an all-time great? LOL

1) Yes, Hamilton, Vettel and Ricciardo were catching Bottas in Austria once he put on the soft tyre. Even though each had a much older tyre, poor on the soft but done enough early on to hold on. But same story as the entire season. Even Silverstone he was relatively weak on the SS at the end. Its usually the harder of the two tyres he struggles with but there has been exceptions, such as Silverstone where it was the other way around.

2) How do you know Bottas turned the engine down? That is an assumption you are making. As I stated once he let Hamilton by he increased his pace by about 0.5 per lap, it was just the other 3 increased it by a bit more than that. That does not suggest turning his engine down to me. He also struggled more with the traffic than the others which he stated in the post race interview.

Hamilton in the race(usually the second part) is much faster than Bottas.You forgot Baku where both VET and HAM were catching him and would have passed him with a few more laps.In Russia he(BOT) almost lost the race to VET too because of his pace.

I absolutely despise that team orders are now allowed to be openly practiced. Force each car on the team to have different sponsors (so there is no conflict of interest) and allow each driver to sink or swim on their own merit. Instead of pairs of drivers negotiating for positions, we would have each and every driver battling everyone else in serious competition. I want to see 22 drivers going at it, fighting everyone and anyone during a race.

And fans can return to discussing racing instead of how chess pieces are moved around the board.

Indycar and NASCAR have it right. Yes, there are teams, but once the flag flies, it is basically every man for himself.

I agree, watching teams orchestrate position changes between themselves adds nothing to my interest in the sport. But I don't see how you stop it without resorting to one-car teams. Perhaps a ban on pit-to-car radio? I've always been intrigued by this idea, as I also don't much like the amount of babysitting that the drivers get from the pitwall.

I absolutely despise that team orders are now allowed to be openly practiced. Force each car on the team to have different sponsors (so there is no conflict of interest) and allow each driver to sink or swim on their own merit. Instead of pairs of drivers negotiating for positions, we would have each and every driver battling everyone else in serious competition. I want to see 22 drivers going at it, fighting everyone and anyone during a race.

And fans can return to discussing racing instead of how chess pieces are moved around the board.

Indycar and NASCAR have it right. Yes, there are teams, but once the flag flies, it is basically every man for himself.

That is why I believe that Bottas lost the spark once he was ordered to move aside, hence dropped so much suddenly. I have no issue with admitting that it was a decent act. I gave that credit to him right away "on line" when it happened. But I am also pointing out now that the bar is being set very low when the bloke who keeps his part of a bargain starts getting praised as someone sacrificing something for behalf of his teammate, out of his good hearth's selflessness. Which would be a fallacy rather. Whether you like to hear it or not.

I also believe that shall it turn out that it was these 2 points to be the ones to lose the title, Hamilton would be regretting and cursing himself for being a "decent bloke".

Why? What's wrong with praising good sportsmanship and selflessness? In an era when he himself has been selfish in the past, as has Vettel, as has Alonso, as has Verstappen, etc. etc. His hero and idol might have been the most selfish of them all. Why should a rare good turn to a fellow competitor not get praised? Dan Ricciardo was praised for being equally as fair with Kvyat in Monaco 2015

Hamilton might regret it yeah. It would only be natural to feel that way. His only goal is to be world champion, not to be F1's nicest guy

I think Prema summed it up nicely when he said the bar must be set very low to think it praiseworthy of someone to simply keep their word. Lewis did the right thing, but is it so laudable and surprising that someone does what they promise to do? Is it our expectation now that lying is the norm and keeping your end of the bargain is something special?

You're talking like someone who is new to F1. The bar has been set that low

Isn't that completely different? Max didn't renege on an agreement: he simply refused to let Sainz try to tackle the cars ahead. If he'd said no after first being let through, that would have been a different story. Verstappen was the Bottas in this story, not the Hamilton.

Hamilton asked to be let through and promised to hand back the place if unsuccessful. He kept that promise, but isn't that a non-story? It's the default expectation, surely?

No it's not a non-story. Bottas dropped himself into a risky scenario that Lewis and Merc could quite easily have said "To hell with that plan" and it would have been totally understandable. Of course in that scenario the anti-Hamilton brigade would out with their pitchforks

It wasn't as simple as moving over for an isolated Bottas, Hamilton threw caution to the wind and took the risk of losing additional points. To Max Verstappen of all people, a guy who just couldn't concede a position and wiped his teammate out the same race

A far cry from his championship rival who has a history including Multi 21, F'ing the race director out of it and using his car as a weapon

If it was say Vandorne letting Alonso through to have a go at say Kyvat in 8th place then I would expect Alonso to give the place back. If it's a guy going for the WDC (even if the guy who lets him by is also going for the WDC) and if that guy is already a multiple WDC, and if the other guy is a younger guy on a one year contract that has yet to be renewed, then I don't think it's quite so obvious.

After Multi 21 would you trust Vettel to give a place back for example?

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

Isn't the question really why did Bottas drop so far behind? If the Ferraris really were going so slowly how could he not keep up? Surely the best way to ensure the place was given back would be to stick to Lewis' gearbox - well, two seconds back to preserve the tyres probably...

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

I reckon that Lewis knew in his heart of hearts that he was never going to get past Kimi without an error from him.

Personally, I think that he wanted to show the team, and his team mate how much faster he was - pure and simple (and he was a lot faster).

He did the right thing and gave the place back, but even that he did on his own terms - it was quite telling how much he had to slow down on that final lap.

I'm a huge fan of Lewis, but for a guy who says he doesn't play mind games, I reckon he's one of the best at it..

Of course I could be totally wrong, it wouldn't be the first time

Exactly this, very good point you made there and I hadn't thought of that but it makes sense.

Whilst the chance of getting Kimi was slim, he showed Mercedes that he once again is quicker in the race. Its very similar to 2008 with Heikki and Lewis. Heikki was able to match and beat Lewis in qualifying maybe 40% of the time. For those races, Mclaren added a little fuel into Heikki's car (which was a good strategy if he had race pace) so he didn't qualifying ahead of him.

Come race day, Lewis would be 0.4-0.6 a lap quicker and Heikki fighting for 4th-5th whilst Hamilton battled to win. Its not so extreme this year but Bottas does have serious race pace issues usually on at least one of the tyres every race. You can overtake on about half of the tracks this year, if Vettels issue happened on one of those then Hamilton likely would have made better progress than Bottas - like in Bahrain earlier in the year.

The next time Hamilton is stuck behind Bottas (which is likely due to Bottas' quick 1 lap pace and relatively poor race pace) then the team can firstly have good faith that Lewis will be quicker and if it comes to it be a good sport and let Bottas back by. We are also at round 11/20, it will only be 3-4 more races before Mercedes will switch to a 1-2 scenario with dedicated title challenger. Whilst Toto was pleased with Hamiltons sportsmanship, he even said it himself "we lost 3 points in the drivers championship" and his body language and those words gave away that he would have much preferred Hamilton to have finished 3rd without the politics of team orders.

Hamilton needs to sort his 1 lap pace out to avoid such instances in the title run in, he has been disappointing and inconsistent in about 4 qualifying sessions this year. Race pace is great with the only let down being Russia.

No it's not a non-story. Bottas dropped himself into a risky scenario that Lewis and Merc could quite easily have said "To hell with that plan" and it would have been totally understandable. Of course in that scenario the anti-Hamilton brigade would out with their pitchforks

It wasn't as simple as moving over for an isolated Bottas, Hamilton threw caution to the wind and took the risk of losing additional points. To Max Verstappen of all people, a guy who just couldn't concede a position and wiped his teammate out the same race

A far cry from his championship rival who has a history including Multi 21, F'ing the race director out of it and using his car as a weapon

Not sure how you ended up at this. Having a go at "the anti-Hamilton brigade" - while nobody had a bad word for Hamilton but rather giving a for this act of honoring the deal with his teammate. And then using this as an opportunity to have a dig at Max and particularly Vettel. How come?

I reckon that Lewis knew in his heart of hearts that he was never going to get past Kimi without an error from him.

Personally, I think that he wanted to show the team, and his team mate how much faster he was - pure and simple (and he was a lot faster).

He did the right thing and gave the place back, but even that he did on his own terms - it was quite telling how much he had to slow down on that final lap.

I'm a huge fan of Lewis, but for a guy who says he doesn't play mind games, I reckon he's one of the best at it..

Of course I could be totally wrong, it wouldn't be the first time

Exactly this, very good point you made there and I hadn't thought of that but it makes sense.

Whilst the chance of getting Kimi was slim, he showed Mercedes that he once again is quicker in the race. Its very similar to 2008 with Heikki and Lewis. Heikki was able to match and beat Lewis in qualifying maybe 40% of the time. For those races, Mclaren added a little fuel into Heikki's car (which was a good strategy if he had race pace) so he didn't qualifying ahead of him.

Come race day, Lewis would be 0.4-0.6 a lap quicker and Heikki fighting for 4th-5th whilst Hamilton battled to win. Its not so extreme this year but Bottas does have serious race pace issues usually on at least one of the tyres every race. You can overtake on about half of the tracks this year, if Vettels issue happened on one of those then Hamilton likely would have made better progress than Bottas - like in Bahrain earlier in the year.

The next time Hamilton is stuck behind Bottas (which is likely due to Bottas' quick 1 lap pace and relatively poor race pace) then the team can firstly have good faith that Lewis will be quicker and if it comes to it be a good sport and let Bottas back by. We are also at round 11/20, it will only be 3-4 more races before Mercedes will switch to a 1-2 scenario with dedicated title challenger. Whilst Toto was pleased with Hamiltons sportsmanship, he even said it himself "we lost 3 points in the drivers championship" and his body language and those words gave away that he would have much preferred Hamilton to have finished 3rd without the politics of team orders.

Hamilton needs to sort his 1 lap pace out to avoid such instances in the title run in, he has been disappointing and inconsistent in about 4 qualifying sessions this year. Race pace is great with the only let down being Russia.

He was only faster than Bottas for a few laps if you check out lap times, might be from Bottas letting him pass and probably a bit frustrated, from the commentators he turned up the engine after passing and when found out he couldn't pass falled back to same laptimes as Bottas

I reckon that Lewis knew in his heart of hearts that he was never going to get past Kimi without an error from him.

Personally, I think that he wanted to show the team, and his team mate how much faster he was - pure and simple (and he was a lot faster).

He did the right thing and gave the place back, but even that he did on his own terms - it was quite telling how much he had to slow down on that final lap.

I'm a huge fan of Lewis, but for a guy who says he doesn't play mind games, I reckon he's one of the best at it..

Of course I could be totally wrong, it wouldn't be the first time

Exactly this, very good point you made there and I hadn't thought of that but it makes sense.

Whilst the chance of getting Kimi was slim, he showed Mercedes that he once again is quicker in the race. Its very similar to 2008 with Heikki and Lewis. Heikki was able to match and beat Lewis in qualifying maybe 40% of the time. For those races, Mclaren added a little fuel into Heikki's car (which was a good strategy if he had race pace) so he didn't qualifying ahead of him.

Come race day, Lewis would be 0.4-0.6 a lap quicker and Heikki fighting for 4th-5th whilst Hamilton battled to win. Its not so extreme this year but Bottas does have serious race pace issues usually on at least one of the tyres every race. You can overtake on about half of the tracks this year, if Vettels issue happened on one of those then Hamilton likely would have made better progress than Bottas - like in Bahrain earlier in the year.

The next time Hamilton is stuck behind Bottas (which is likely due to Bottas' quick 1 lap pace and relatively poor race pace) then the team can firstly have good faith that Lewis will be quicker and if it comes to it be a good sport and let Bottas back by. We are also at round 11/20, it will only be 3-4 more races before Mercedes will switch to a 1-2 scenario with dedicated title challenger. Whilst Toto was pleased with Hamiltons sportsmanship, he even said it himself "we lost 3 points in the drivers championship" and his body language and those words gave away that he would have much preferred Hamilton to have finished 3rd without the politics of team orders.

Hamilton needs to sort his 1 lap pace out to avoid such instances in the title run in, he has been disappointing and inconsistent in about 4 qualifying sessions this year. Race pace is great with the only let down being Russia.

He was only faster than Bottas for a few laps if you check out lap times, might be from Bottas letting him pass and probably a bit frustrated, from the commentators he turned up the engine after passing and when found out he couldn't pass falled back to same laptimes as Bottas

He was faster than Bottas until he got held up by Kimi who himself was held up by Vettel and fell into the 1.2-1.5 second dirty air.

When Hamilton joined that train, the pace picked up significantly. Bottas himself was lapping 0.5 a lap quicker after letting Hamilton through and still dropped back.